The (unacknowledged) tombs under the Church of the Annunciation(By René Salm, author of The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus)Photo: Roman-era tombs in the venerated area of Nazareth

Above is a map of the venerated area of Nazareth with modern buildings and streets indicated. The Church of the Annunciation (CA, in the lower part of the map) is a major destination of pilgrims coming from throughout the world, and is the largest Christian structure in the Middle East. Under the church is the traditional maiden home of the Blessed Virgin Mary (“M”), where she received the annunciation from the Archangel Gabriel:

In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. [Lk 1:26-28 KJV]Not mentioned in any guidebook, however, are three Roman-era tombs less than ten meters from that holy site, now called the “Chapel of the Angel.” These tombs are marked by a “K” which stands for “kokhim,” a well-known type of tomb prevalent during Roman times in Palestine. Two other tombs also may have existed under the present church (in parentheses on the map), but the evidence for them was destroyed during construction of the edifice. Nevertheless, early twentieth-century witnesses mention them in obscure scholarly reports.In Judaism, corpses are a source of ritual impurity. The Pentateuch mandates that “everyone who is unclean through contact with a corpse” must be put outside the camp for seven days (Num 5:3). The Talmud mandates that tombs be a minimum distance (“fifty ells,” or about twenty-five meters) from the nearest habitation. Of course, the implications of this are explosive where the Christian claims at Nazareth are concerned. Mary’s family was certainly Jewish, and the tombs under the Church of the Annunciation are tombs under her very house!

Fully realizing the potentially fatal implications for traditional doctrine represented by the presence of these tombs, the principle modern archeologist at Nazareth, Father Bellarmino Bagatti, strove to ignore their existence—even though they were described, mapped, and drawn by his predecessors who were also priests. Only one of the tombs next to the Chapel of the Angel is mentioned in his standard two-volume work, Excavations in Nazareth. Bagatti lamely suggested that the tomb (with several graves) dated to Crusader times. It is a desperate explanation, however, for there is no record of such a macabre Christian custom of burying Crusader dead at the house of the Blessed Virgin Mary!A Roman-era wine press has also been located ten meters north of the Chapel of the Angel. In sum, the archeological evidence clearly shows that this was a cemetery and agricultural area in later Roman times—not the location of dwellings.

Last edited by SEG on Fri May 18, 2018 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

scrmbldggs wrote:Tomb shmomb. It's as irrelevant as the fact that not his mother, but his stepdad Joseph, was of the house of David.

The thing is that the pesky tombs have been dated by a kokhim tomb expert at post 50CE. Wasn't Jeebus supposed to be kicking around 1 CE to 33CE? This means the "house that Jesus lived in" was built over a necropolis! Jewish peeps freak out about dead peeps!

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Rene has written two very comprehensive books on Nazareth. He frequently admits that he is no expert of archeology, but only comments on the experts' research.

Here is a very brief summary of the material evidence from Nazareth as researched by Rene Salm:

Before 1 BCEEvidence of Nazareth at the time of Jesus - None -

After 1CEEvidence of the birth of Nazareth in the common ERAAfter 25 CE: All oil lampsAfter 50 CE: All post-Iron Age tombsAfter 50 CE: All pottery and other movable evidence

All the "evidence" of Nazareth being a viable town, including the dodgy "house" found just after Rene wrote his first book cannot be verified as being in that date range. Oil lamps that were contained within the tombs that are dated post 50 CE. There are also pottery shards from 700 years earlier.

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

scrmbldggs wrote:Tomb shmomb. It's as irrelevant as the fact that not his mother, but his stepdad Joseph, was of the house of David.

The thing is that the pesky tombs have been dated by a kokhim tomb expert at post 50CE. Wasn't Jeebus supposed to be kicking around 1 CE to 33CE? This means the "house that Jesus lived in" was built over a necropolis! Jewish peeps freak out about dead peeps!

Kokhim tombs are expensive. A small settlement might not have been able to afford them until it grew larger. So sure! Jeebus could have lived there (not likely to have lived in one specific house rather than another) while the settlement was smaller, and then kokhim tombs were built later.

SEG wrote:The thing is that the pesky tombs have been dated by a kokhim tomb expert at post 50CE. Wasn't Jeebus supposed to be kicking around 1 CE to 33CE? This means the "house that Jesus lived in" was built over a necropolis! Jewish peeps freak out about dead peeps!

Gord wrote:Kokhim tombs are expensive. A small settlement might not have been able to afford them until it grew larger.

Correct. I would say that they were built at the well travelled through and commercial village of Japha (Yafa, Japhia), about one mile from what was later known as Nazareth. If the tombs were built from 50CE then it would have been a vast time later when people had long forgotten about them. This fits well with the idea that Nazareth had a long hiatus of habitation and was probably getting re-built after the 3rd or 4th centuries.

So sure! Jeebus could have lived there (not likely to have lived in one specific house rather than another) while the settlement was smaller, and then kokhim tombs were built later.

Nope, this would mean that the tombs were built inside established houses! Unless you are saying that immediately after Jesus died the town became a ghost town for some reason?

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

So sure! Jeebus could have lived there (not likely to have lived in one specific house rather than another) while the settlement was smaller, and then kokhim tombs were built later.

Nope, this would mean that the tombs were built inside established houses!

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion. If houses are built overtop of tombs, then the houses weren't there before the tombs were built.

You said that Jeebus could have lived there while the settlement was smaller, and then kokhim tombs were built later. That would mean that the houses were first and that the tombs would have had to be built under the houses. If the tombs were built earlier, ancient Jewish people would not build their houses on a known cemetery.

The logical answer is that post 50CE tombs were built away from the commercial centre of Jaffa on barren land (i.e. no city or town of Nazareth) and a century or two later human habitation began after St Helena declared a history of Jeebus.

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

So sure! Jeebus could have lived there (not likely to have lived in one specific house rather than another) while the settlement was smaller, and then kokhim tombs were built later.

Nope, this would mean that the tombs were built inside established houses!

I don't see how you're reaching that conclusion. If houses are built overtop of tombs, then the houses weren't there before the tombs were built.

You said that Jeebus could have lived there while the settlement was smaller, and then kokhim tombs were built later. That would mean that the houses were first and that the tombs would have had to be built under the houses. If the tombs were built earlier, ancient Jewish people would not build their houses on a known cemetery.

The logical answer is that post 50CE tombs were built away from the commercial centre of Jaffa on barren land (i.e. no city or town of Nazareth) and a century or two later human habitation began after St Helena declared a history of Jeebus.

I'm talking about houses built where the tombs weren't. If Jeebus lived in a settlement that was built before the tombs were built, he couldn't have lived in a house that was built on top of one of those tomb 'cause they weren't there yet. Tombs would have been built where there were no houses at the time. Houses built afterwards would not have been part of the settlement phase when Jeebus was alleged to have lived there.

I don't see why it's logical to assume the tombs at the site were built by the people living in Jaffa when there is evidence of people liiving in Nazareth. Dismissing the evidence because it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion is not scientific.

Thanks for proving my point, Gord. ALL of the evidence that was supposed to support the notion of those houses came from inside those tombs that have been proven to be post 50CE. By an expert of those type of tombs.

I don't see why it's logical to assume the tombs at the site were built by the people living in Jaffa when there is evidence of people liiving in Nazareth. Dismissing the evidence because it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion is not scientific.

I agree with you that It's not scientific to dismiss evidence. Did it occur to you that you may have preconceived notions yourself? If you are interested in exploring this further, you might want to look at what is being disputed. All I am saying is I have looked at Salm's case and it looks pretty darn convincing. Sure he isn't an expert himself, but if he relies upon the evidence produced by actual experts in their field to build his case, that to me is a logical route to follow. Btw, Rene is very approachable and I have spoken to him on another forum. If you or anyone else here is interested on some follow up questions, I will invite him for a guest post.

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

Thanks for proving my point, Gord. ALL of the evidence that was supposed to support the notion of those houses came from inside those tombs that have been proven to be post 50CE. By an expert of those type of tombs.

That's not what I heard, which I'll grant is not a lot. I don't know what was found in the tombs, but pottery sherds and coins were found elsewhere.

I don't see why it's logical to assume the tombs at the site were built by the people living in Jaffa when there is evidence of people liiving in Nazareth. Dismissing the evidence because it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion is not scientific.

I agree with you that It's not scientific to dismiss evidence. Did it occur to you that you may have preconceived notions yourself?

Of course!

If you are interested in exploring this further, you might want to look at what is being disputed. All I am saying is I have looked at Salm's case and it looks pretty darn convincing. Sure he isn't an expert himself, but if he relies upon the evidence produced by actual experts in their field to build his case, that to me is a logical route to follow.

I'm afraid of experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, so I usually rely on experts to express their opinions. Then I accept those opinions conditional to further and better information being expressed by other experts.

SEG wrote:Thanks for proving my point, Gord. ALL of the evidence that was supposed to support the notion of those houses came from inside those tombs that have been proven to be post 50CE. By an expert of those type of tombs.

That's not what I heard, which I'll grant is not a lot. I don't know what was found in the tombs, but pottery sherds and coins were found elsewhere.

So would you mind sharing what you have heard with any supporting citations? Let's talk about the pottery sherds and coins. Where were they found and what makes you think that they are verifiable proof of a city or town known as Nazareth existing at the supposed time of Jesus? This is what a friend of mine, Neil Godfrey from Vridar has to say about it; See https://vridar.org/2016/02/22/nazareth- ... -evidence/

In the Bronze and Iron ages there was a significant settlement in the region of what we know as the Nazareth valley area. It was known as Japhia in the Bible. This city was destroyed by the Assyrians around 700 BCE.

From 700 BCE to roughly 100 CE: no material evidence exists testifying to a settlement in this region.

Hellenistic settlement?Eleven pieces of moveable evidence (pottery, oil lamps) have at times been upheld as evidence that a settlement was re-established in the centuries prior to the turn of the era.

In every case but one these pieces of evidence have been redated to later times; the exception is a piece redated to the earlier Iron Age.

Early Roman PeriodKokh TombApproximately two dozen kokhim tombs in the Nazareth basin. According to “Hans-Peter Kuhnen — a leading expert on kokhim tombs in Galilee — those tombs first spread to the areas north of Jerusalem from the south, and they did so not before about the middle of the first century CE.” Given that around 90% of the artefacts from the Nazareth basin that have been published have been found in these tombs, it follows that the bulk of Nazareth evidence dates to well after the turn of the century.

That “Herodian” oil lampExamining the published literature (e.g. Varda Sussman), one learns that “Herodian” is an erroneous label and the lamp is more securely dated to well beyond the period of Herod the Great.

The hill on which their city was builtand they got up and drove Him out of the city, and led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city had been built, in order to throw Him down the cliff. — Luke 4:29

There is no cliff in the region over which one can toss anyone to their demise.

The hillside does reach 20% in places and his too steep for the construction of dwellings.

Could they have terraced the hill for this purpose? Problem is there is no indication of any terracing in the region around the traditional site of the village — around the Venerated Area of Nazareth. Besides, there is a nice flat valley floor nearby.

Then again, the hillside is pockmarked with hollows, caves, and silos — some extending to several superimposed chambers within the earth. The Franciscan area — where most of the excavations have taken place — is literally honeycombed with cavities with over 68 identified silos once used for the storage of grain. This could not have been an area of habitations. Rather, the material record emphatically demonstrates that it was an area used for agricultural activity and associated food storage. (NazarethGate, p. 137)

Dozens of kokhim tombs on the hillside further shows the area was not used as a settlement. Even the Venerated Area is located in the middle of a Roman-era cemetery. The Church of the Annunciation sits on three to five such tombs. Tourist guidebooks do not advertise this fact.

As mentioned, this post is only a general overview of the relevant archaeological evidence (or lack of evidence) for the existence of Nazareth in the early first century.

How this state of play has been misrepresented in the media, often with the encouragement of media-savvy archaeologists, is elaborated in depth in NazarethGate. I look forward to posting more from this book.

pottery sherds and coins were found elsewhere

Sure, but pottery sherds and coins that can't be verified as proof that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus should be discarded, unless you have proof otherwise?

I don't see why it's logical to assume the tombs at the site were built by the people living in Jaffa when there is evidence of people living in Nazareth. Dismissing the evidence because it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion is not scientific.

I agree with you that It's not scientific to dismiss evidence. Did it occur to you that you may have preconceived notions yourself?

Of course!

I'm glad to hear you say that mate. I, like everyone else in the world has them too. I would be willing to change my mind if there was strong evidence of Jesus or Nazareth existing at the same time of his supposed existence. The problem is that there is none of either. The weak evidence of God or any other deity falls into the same basket.

If you are interested in exploring this further, you might want to look at what is being disputed. All I am saying is I have looked at Salm's case and it looks pretty darn convincing. Sure he isn't an expert himself, but if he relies upon the evidence produced by actual experts in their field to build his case, that to me is a logical route to follow.

I'm afraid of experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, so I usually rely on experts to express their opinions. Then I accept those opinions conditional to further and better information being expressed by other experts.

That's usually a good way to go. I usually go the same way. Experts with both skills and experience are normally the best resources to go to if you are unsure of your position. It changes awfully if those experts are strongly biased in their beliefs because of their perceived salvation, career paths or salary. Then the whole ball park changes.

I do not trust Rene Salm.

How come? I have never seen anything that questions his trust ?

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

The other elephants in the room are the total lack of mentions in the OT, Talmud and every other ancient source other than the NT. Josephus names 19 towns in Palestine, yet omits Nazareth, even though he lived a short stroll from it! Then there is the missing synagogue. How do you lose a whole synagogue? I have heard another atheist writer (Australian Tim O'Neill) argue this by saying, "well, a synagogue could be any old meeting place" - even a tree? I think that with such poor evidence of both Jesus and Nazareth we should have strong reasons for doubt.

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.

SEG wrote:Thanks for proving my point, Gord. ALL of the evidence that was supposed to support the notion of those houses came from inside those tombs that have been proven to be post 50CE. By an expert of those type of tombs.

That's not what I heard, which I'll grant is not a lot. I don't know what was found in the tombs, but pottery sherds and coins were found elsewhere.

So would you mind sharing what you have heard with any supporting citations?

Well, no, it's what I heard, not what I read. No videos of the events exist. I could link you to people like Ken Dark or Yardenna Alexandre, but those are probably the people you specifically don't trust.

Let's talk about the pottery sherds and coins. Where were they found and what makes you think that they are verifiable proof of a city or town known as Nazareth existing at the supposed time of Jesus? This is what a friend of mine, Neil Godfrey from Vridar has to say about it; See https://vridar.org/2016/02/22/nazareth- ... -evidence/

Just to be open and honest about this, I have read some of his posts on other skeptic forums (such as the old Randi forums) before and I do not like (but do not explicitly dislike) or trust Neil Godfrey.

(Interestingly, I tried to find one of those threads somewhere but instead found this: http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1143 There are a few, shall we say, "unlikeable" posting styles there, and vridar's is one of them.)

pottery sherds and coins were found elsewhere

Sure, but pottery sherds and coins that can't be verified as proof that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus should be discarded, unless you have proof otherwise?

I think it's important to distinguish between proof and evidence. I never talk about proof, only evidence. The sherds and coins are evidence, and are considered to be strong evidence by the experts who have considered them, such as Dark and Alexandre.

I don't see why it's logical to assume the tombs at the site were built by the people living in Jaffa when there is evidence of people living in Nazareth. Dismissing the evidence because it doesn't fit with a preconceived notion is not scientific.

I agree with you that It's not scientific to dismiss evidence. Did it occur to you that you may have preconceived notions yourself?

Of course!

I'm glad to hear you say that mate. I, like everyone else in the world has them too. I would be willing to change my mind if there was strong evidence of Jesus or Nazareth existing at the same time of his supposed existence. The problem is that there is none of either. The weak evidence of God or any other deity falls into the same basket.

Well, there's strong evidence for people named "Jesus" (or Yoshua or whatever). And the evidence for Nazareth existing at the time is at least compelling. But none of that can demonstrate the existence of any actual gods.

I do not trust Rene Salm.

How come? I have never seen anything that questions his trust ?

You surely read the link to Bart Ehrman's critisms of Rene Salm that I provided before where he questioned Salm's ability to critique the work of archaeologists. He is a non-expert contending that the experts are wrong, and no one in the appropriate field accepts his views.

SEG wrote:Thanks for proving my point, Gord. ALL of the evidence that was supposed to support the notion of those houses came from inside those tombs that have been proven to be post 50CE. By an expert of those type of tombs.

That's not what I heard, which I'll grant is not a lot. I don't know what was found in the tombs, but pottery sherds and coins were found elsewhere.

SEG wrote:So would you mind sharing what you have heard with any supporting citations?

Well, no, it's what I heard, not what I read. No videos of the events exist. I could link you to people like Ken Dark or Yardenna Alexandre, but those are probably the people you specifically don't trust.

Yep, because it seems that they have deliberately misnamed evidence to place it in line with their theology.

Alleged evidence from the Hellenistic eraThe traditional Catholic view is that Nazareth has existed in continuity since the Bronze Age.However, this view has become increasingly untenable, partly as a result of the appearance of mybook. An alternate view, now gaining currency, is that Nazareth came into existence inHellenistic times. However, the critical evidence to substantiate this view cannot be found in thepublished scientific literature. I show that all the specific evidence relative to the Hellenistic eraclaimed by Bagatti and other archaeologists to date simply does not exist. Those Hellenistic claims reduce to eleven pieces of movable evidence, including pottery and some oil lamps. In every case the evidence has been redated by specialists to later times, and in one case to the Iron Age (MoN:135). In short, there is no Hellenistic material evidence from the Nazareth basin at all.

Alleged evidence from the turn of the eraThe evidence relative to the turn of the era (”Early Roman Period”) is equally problematic and results from a compounding of errors both in dating and in nomenclature. The Myth of Nazareth attempts to set the record straight. Firstly, according to the work of Hans-Peter Kuhnen—arguably the world’s leading expert on kokhim tombs in the Galilee1—those tombs first spread to the areas north of Jerusalem from the south, and they did so not before c. 50 CE.

2 This means that not only do all the two dozen kokhim tombs in the Nazareth basin date well after the time of Christ, but also that the panoply of movable evidence found inside them dates to Middle and Later Roman times. This fact alone removes approximately 90% of the Nazareth evidence to well after the turn of the era, for the vast preponderance of recovered evidence from the basin has been excavated in connection with kokhim tombs.

Secondly, the so-called “Herodian” oil lamps are a critical component traditionally used to date the settlement to the time of Christ. This is the earliest oil lamp type found at Nazareth.

However, a careful examination of the specialist literature shows that the name “Herodian” is a misnomer, and that these lamps first appeared in the Galilee in CE times—this according to the work of oil lamp specialist Varda Sussman and others.3 In my book I adopt the term (first used by Paul Lapp) “bow-spouted lamps.” Until The Myth of Nazareth appeared such oil lamps were assumed to date to the time of Herod the Great or even before, however we can now say that, in the Galilee, they postdate the time of Herod the Great and certainly do not constitute evidencefor the existence of a settlement at the turn of the era.

Simply put: like the kokhim tombs, the earliest Nazareth oil lamps categorically postdate the time of Jesus.

In fact, my book reaches the remarkable conclusion that not a single artefact, tomb or structure at Nazareth can be dated with certainty before 100 CE—that is, unless we go back to the Iron Age (MoN:205).

Let's talk about the pottery sherds and coins. Where were they found and what makes you think that they are verifiable proof of a city or town known as Nazareth existing at the supposed time of Jesus? This is what a friend of mine, Neil Godfrey from Vridar has to say about it; See https://vridar.org/2016/02/22/nazareth- ... -evidence/

Just to be open and honest about this, I have read some of his posts on other skeptic forums (such as the old Randi forums) before and I do not like (but do not explicitly dislike) or trust Neil Godfrey.

Neil is an online friend of mine and I know him pretty well. I have never seen him use ad hom or vilify anyone. Guys like Tim O'Neill are another kettle of fish.

(Interestingly, I tried to find one of those threads somewhere but instead found this: http://jameshannam.proboards.com/thread/1143 There are a few, shall we say, "unlikeable" posting styles there, and vridar's is one of them.)

That's him! This is a typical O'Neill rant:

Okay, then let's actually look at the evidence of archaeologists, then consider the armchair objections of the piano teacher from Oregon named Rene Salm and let objective sceptics decide who is more likely to be correct.

Firstly, I should note that I was mistaken in a previous post in a couple of my characterisations of the current position of the piano teacher, Salm. Since I was travelling at the time and it's been some time since I checked Salm's website, I recalled that he had actually accepted the dating of some of the agricultural terraces at Nazareth and of the recently excavated house there. I was wrong - Salm is much more intransigent than that. And without good reason, as we'll see.

Reading Salm on this subject reminds me of the days, many years ago, when I actually used to bother reading Creationist material so I could debate Creationists. Salm's book, The Myth of Nazareth: The Invented Town of Jesus, bears many similarities to Creationist classics like Duane Gish's Evolution? The Fossils Say No!. You have an amateur with no training in the relevant field.

Hypocritically, Tim doesn't have "any training in the relevant field" either. He repeatedly uses the condescending term "Piano Teacher" to insult Salm. Even the thread title displays this. Rene isn't pitting himself against the accredited archeologists, he pits the evidence (or lack of evidence) against them. Tim O'Neill loves to think of himself as a respected historian when he hasn't even written a book or published any scholarly articles. He should refer to himself as a "Resume Writer", if he thinks outside occupations are relevant to the subject matter.

pottery sherds and coins were found elsewhere

Sure, but pottery sherds and coins that can't be verified as proof that Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus should be discarded, unless you have proof otherwise?

I think it's important to distinguish between proof and evidence. I never talk about proof, only evidence.

Ok, point taken.

The sherds and coins are evidence, and are considered to be strong evidence by the experts who have considered them, such as Dark and Alexandre.

Have you seen the sherds and coins? I have and they shouldn't be considered as anything but weak evidence as the sherds are too small to be clearly identifiable and the coins are so pitted and worn they too are unreadable.

I'm glad to hear you say that mate. I, like everyone else in the world has them too. I would be willing to change my mind if there was strong evidence of Jesus or Nazareth existing at the same time of his supposed existence. The problem is that there is none of either. The weak evidence of God or any other deity falls into the same basket.

Well, there's strong evidence for people named "Jesus" (or Yoshua or whatever). And the evidence for Nazareth existing at the time is at least compelling. But none of that can demonstrate the existence of any actual gods.

I don't have any doubts of people called Jesus at that time and place. I just don't think that there is any qualitative evidence that any one of them fits the historical Jesus motif.

I do not trust Rene Salm.

SEG wrote:How come? I have never seen anything that questions his trust ?

You surely read the link to Bart Ehrman's critisms of Rene Salm that I provided before where he questioned Salm's ability to critique the work of archaeologists. He is a non-expert contending that the experts are wrong, and no one in the appropriate field accepts his views.

Bart Ehrman can't critique the work of archaeologists himself, as he has no qualifications in the field. I've seen him write blunders of his own as it isn't his scope. Rene worked on his research for his books for over 5 years each and carefully cites and uses the experts opinions, not his own to build his arguments. I think he has done a great job of it. They may dislike him, but no-one to my knowledge has rebutted his main points as outlined in his books. Most of the people I know who disagree with what he has written haven't even taken the time to read his books.

Thanks for showing me that forum thread, btw, I haven't seen it before.

“There are no known non-biblical references to a historical Jesus by any historian or other writer of the time during and shortly after Jesus's purported advent.” His so-called life was a farce.